From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fabio Massimo Di Nitto Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:07:01 +0200 Subject: [Cluster-devel] spectator setting in cluster.conf In-Reply-To: <20071023181539.GC23832@redhat.com> References: <20071022151200.GA26370@redhat.com> <471D85B3.5020405@ubuntu.com> <20071023134507.GA23832@redhat.com> <471E2838.9060703@ubuntu.com> <20071023181539.GC23832@redhat.com> Message-ID: <471E6275.7040402@ubuntu.com> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Teigland wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 06:58:32PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: >>> An explicit votes= setting for a node would override the 0 votes implied >>> by . >> So ok. I need to understand you better because I think what I wrote >> before is in contradiction with this override. >> >> In my patch spectator overrides votes="" no matter if they are specified >> or not. >> >> Here you say that spectator overrides automatic setting of votes="" when >> votes="" is not specified in the config. So in my head this implies two >> config changes to set a node to spectator. Remove the votes="" entry (if >> any and IME is quite common in the configs) and add spectator. >> >> I think it makes more sense (to me) to override votes="" in full when >> spectator is set. > > If no votes are specified, the default is 1. If no votes are specified > and exists, then the default is 0. If you want to override > either of these defaults, then you include votes="N". A specified value > must always override a default value. agreed :) > If an existing cluster.conf has , the votes > setting is obviously extraneous. And making this node a full spectator > would require either: > > - changing to an explicit votes="0" and adding , or > - removing the explicit votes setting altogether and adding Ok perfect. That's all I wanted to agree on. > It needs to be possible to have a spectator node with 1 vote (or more), > and if you're saying that this config: > > > > > > should *not* work to do that, then it's madness :-) In my original proposal this snippet would have turned the node into a spectator with having a higher priority over votes. That was all the origin of my misunderstanding and I had to make sure we were on the same page. Thanks for explaining over and over :) Fabio -- I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse.